Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1546
2009(6) Supreme 580
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ganguly, J.
Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-I —Appellant
versus
M/s. Charminar Non-Wovens Limited —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3828 of 2007
Decided on 08-09-2009
For the Appeared : P. P. Malhotra, ASG, Ms. Madhurima Tatia, S.K. Dubey, V. Dalmia, B. Krishna Prasad Advs., With him for the Appellants.
For the Respondents:S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., S. Sukumaran, Ms. Meera Mathur, Anand Sukumar, Rajesh, P. K. Mahapatra, Advs., with him for the Respondents.
IMPORTANT POINT
With the concurrent finding of facts reached by lower authorities in classification on the basis of evidence and on analysis of relevant legal provision interference is not called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Headnote:Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 9(1), 52 – A, 173–B, 173–F and 173–G–Classification of non – woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene – Whether are classifiable under heading 5703.20 as “jute carpet” to justify concessional rate of duty or whether the said non – woven carpets are classifiable under heading 5703.90 as “other carpets – Show – cause notice was issued by Revenue against respondent alleging the respondent’s a case of mis-classification of carpets under heading 5703.20 – Case of respondent was that it was manufacturer of blankets, carpets and floor coverings falling under Chapter 63 and 57 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and its products were classifiable under chapter sub-heading No. 5703.20–. The adjudicating authority dropped show cause proceedings holding that in the goods manufactured by assessee, predominance of jute content by weight had not been disputed in the show – cause notice – Appeal – Concurrent finding of appellate authority that the goods in question were correctly classified under chapter sub – heading 5703.20 and were not to be classified under “other” under chapter sub –heading No.5703.90 – Appeal – Rejected by Tribunal – Appeal- In this matter the Revenue’s case had been constantly rejected at all the three levels, in adjudication order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, in the appellate order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the Tribunal – Such decisions had been rendered on the basis of the relevant materials and after analyzing the evidence on record as also the provision of Section Notes and Chapter Notes – Such concurrent findings by the lower authorities are interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35L of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 only when such findings are patently perverse or are based on manifest misreading of any legal provision – However none of these situations were present in the instant case –Hence,appeal held liable to be dismissed (Paras 6 to 11)
Facts of the Case :
In present appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue was whether non-woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene are classifiable under heading 5703.20 as “jute carpet” to justify concessional rate of duty or whether the said non – woven carpets are classifiable under heading 5703.90 as “other carpets”.
Findings of the Court :
The adjudicating authority dropped show cause proceedings holding that in the goods manufactured by assessee, predominance of jute content by weight had not been disputed in the show – cause notice. Concurrent finding of appellate authority that the goods in question were correctly classified under chapter sub – heading 5703.20 and were not to be classified under “other” under chapter sub –heading No.5703.90.Appeal thereagainst was Rejected by Tribunal. Held in this matter the Revenue’s case had been constantly rejected at all the three levels, in adjudication order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, in the appellate order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the Tribunal. Such decisions had been rendered on the basis of the relevant materials and after analyzing the evidence on record as also the provision of Section Notes and Chapter Notes. Such concurrent findings by the lower authorities are interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35L of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 only when such findings are patently perverse or are based on manifest misreading of any legal provision.However none of these situations were present in the instant case. Hence, appeal was held liable to be dismissed
Result-Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
Ganguly, J.
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue is whether non – woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene are classifiable under heading 5703.20 as “jute carpet” to justify concessional rate of duty or whether the said non – woven carpets are classifiable under heading 5703.90 as “other carpets”.
2. It is not in dispute that the period which is involved in this case is between April, 1996 to October, 1996.
3. The show-cause notice was issued by the Revenue against the respondent on 6.11.1996 alleging the respondent’s a case of mis – classification of carpets under heading 5703.20 and thereby mis – utilization of the benefit of Notification No.29/95-CE dated 16.3.95 and 16/96-CE dated 23.7.1996 and thus clearing the goods at concessional rate of duty of 5%. The Revenue’s case is that such concessional rate of duty is available only for jute exposed surface floor coverings and, therefore, there has been contravention of Rule 9(1), 52-A, 173-B, 173-F and 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. The case of the respondent is that it is manufacturer of blankets, carpets and floor coverings falling under Chapter 63 and 57 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter “the said Act”) and its products known as “Charms Jute Floor Coverings”, is classifiable under chapter sub-heading No. 5705.00 (before 26.7.1996) and then under chapter sub-heading No. 5703.20.
5. The respondent contested the aforesaid show-cause proceedings and therein an adjudication order dated 29.11.2004 was passed. In passing the said adjudication order, the adjudicating authority returned several findings to the effect that in the past the issue involved in this case was decided in favour of the assessee by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) vide its order dated 16.07.1993. After the said order, no objection was raised by the Revenue and the assessee continued to discharge its obligation of duty liability in terms of the said order. The adjudication authority also came to a finding that the surface of the goods manufactured by the assessee is neither piled nor looped with ground fabric, rather the goods are manufactured by needle punching process. The aforesaid findings were arrived at after examining a piece of the sample of floor coverings which were produced in the course of hearing. The adjudicating authority also came to a finding that in the goods manufactured by the assessee, predominance of jute content by weight has not been disputed in the show – cause notice. Rather the chemical examiner’s report dated 28.08.1991 clearly states the predominance of jute by weight in the product. Therefore, the adjudicating authority followed the decision of CESTAT in the case of Uni Products (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise4 – 2006 (200) ELT 278 (Tri. – Delhi), and held that the process of manufacture of non- woven carpets which is followed in the case in hand is exactly the same which was followed in the case of Uni Products (supra) and accordingly the show – cause proceedings were dropped against the assessee by an order dated 29.11.2004.
6. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the Revenue and the said appeal came to be decided by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate authority noted why the adjudication authority decided that the classification of the product in question should be under sub-heading 5703.20. The appellate authority also noted that the said carpet was physically examined by the adjudicating authority, and after doing so, the adjudicating authority came to a finding that floor covering was neither piled nor looped, rather the goods were manufactured by needle punching process. The adjudicating authority, therefore, came to a concurrent finding that the goods in question were correctly classified under chapter sub-heading 5703.20 and are not to be classified under “other” under chapter sub-heading No. 5
